4/25/2013 1:03 PM
Having sex with a child isn't legal. We wouldn't allow you to marry a child because the relationship itself is illegal

According to your logic, it should all be legalized, since no one has a choice in their attraction.
Gay relationships are legal. We can allow them to marry because there is nothing criminal about their relationship.

According to your logic, since people don't have a choice over their attraction, relationships with children or animals or inanimate objects should not be illegal. Again, that's YOUR logic working there.

Or do you want to backpedal and take back what you said? I bet you won't even though I have you backed into a corner.
4/25/2013 1:09 PM
I understand he's using the word by its commonly accepted definition - but I also understand that definition isn't logical and is only the commonly accepted definition because of the influence of propaganda.

Great.  So you wouldn't tell him he was wrong.  Because what he's telling you is that he's sexually attracted to men, and you'd understand that.

It's like when someone says "I could care less."  They mean "couldn't." I'm not going to assume he means "could" because THAT would be illogical.

4/25/2013 1:13 PM
See if you can spot the difference:

Gay sex:legal
Adult/child sex:illegal

We aren't considering allowing men to marry children because the relationship itself is not legal. We can consider allowing gays to marry because their relationship is legal.

I don't want to get repetitive here, but that's as simple as I can possibly make it. If you still don't understand, have your wife explain it to you, she just left my place and should be home in about 15 minutes.
4/25/2013 1:16 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/25/2013 12:28:00 PM (view original):
It's totally non existent. There's no probably. You're clear in that you are probably bi sexual if you are attracted to men.

I'm not "probably" anything. You're making assumptions that are incorrect.

Everyone has some level of attraction to everyone else - sometimes it's so scarce it is practically non-existent, while other times it is very strong.  That doesn't mean everyone is bisexual.
Non existent here. I'm definitely not bi sexual. If you are attracted to men, you just might be.
4/25/2013 1:28 PM (edited)
Great.  So you wouldn't tell him he was wrong.  Because what he's telling you is that he's sexually attracted to men, and you'd understand that.

I do understand that's the way he's using the word; I just wish he weren't either contributing to or a victim of misguided propaganda.
It's like when someone says "I could care less."  They mean "couldn't." I'm not going to assume he means "could" because THAT would be illogical.

You're right on this one. People frequently use language which is logically incorrect but is nonetheless commonly accepted - and this is a PERFECT example.

I'm glad you seem to understand the principle that language can be incorrect from a logical standpoint but still commonly accepted.

Moving along from that in a LOGICAL manner, the word homosexual is also an example of where the commonly accepted definition is incorrect from a logical standpoint.
See if you can spot the difference:

Gay sex:legal
Adult/child sex:illegal

We aren't considering allowing men to marry children because the relationship itself is not legal. We can consider allowing gays to marry because their relationship is legal.
According to YOUR logic, that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is people don't choose their attraction, so they should be able to marry whomever or whatever they wish. That's what YOUR logic says.

Now if you'd like to CHANGE what you said, then you can include information about what is legal and illegal vis a vis sex acts or relationships. Otherwise your logic continues to allow anyone to recommend legalizing marriage with children, animals, and even inanimate objects.
I don't want to get repetitive here, but that's as simple as I can possibly make it. If you still don't understand, have your wife explain it to you, she just left my place and should be home in about 15 minutes.
I understand that you're trying to change what you said to include only legal relationships and sex acts being allow to marry. But that's NOT what you said before. The least you can do is admit you changed your mind here.
Non existent here. I'm definitely not bi sexual. If you are attracted to men, you just might be.
I'm definitely not bisexual as well. I know that because I've never been in a sexual encounter with a man, regardless of attraction.

However, since you seem curious, my level of attraction to men is similar to yours in that it is so scarce it is practically non-existent. Still, even if I had more of an attraction to men, that wouldn't make me bisexual unless I acted on that attraction.

Oh, wait, you probably don't know how to avoid buying into the propaganda that says otherwise. In that case, you base everything on the lie that attraction determines what you are - and that means most of the people in the world are bisexual, since (whether many of them admit it or not) most people do have at least a small attraction to both genders.



4/25/2013 1:39 PM
I never said that attraction was the only thing that matters. I said that people don't have a choice in what gender they are attracted to so we should allow them to marry whatever gender they want.

I understand your confusion though, as this doesn't fit into your "all situations are exactly the same, no critical thinking required" worldview.
4/25/2013 1:42 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/1/2013 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 4/1/2013 9:59:00 AM (view original):
No, bad luck, I am not sexually attracted to men.

However, just like anyone else, I could decide to persue a romantic and/or sexual relationship with anyone - including a man - for any reason or reasons I want, so it's really irrelevant.

It's really not irrelevant. You aren't sexually attracted to men, so men aren't an option for you when you choose a partner.
Wow.  I picked a random, early page and found this on it.

91 pages, 24 days later, we're still here.

Holy fuckingfuck.
4/25/2013 1:43 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/25/2013 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Wait, now the definition of the word "correct" is up for grabs?

It's not "up for grabs". It simply has different meanings in different contexts. If you don't get that, you are certainly too stupid to be in this discussion.

I'm thinking that biz was an advisor to Bill Clinton in the '90's:

4/25/2013 1:43 PM
I never said that attraction was the only thing that matters. I said that people don't have a choice in what gender they are attracted to so we should allow them to marry whatever gender they want.

So YOUR logic is that since people don't choose who they are attracted to, they should be able to marry whomever they want.

By using YOUR logic, it can also be argued that since people can't choose not to be attracted to children, animals, or inanimate objects, they should be able to marry whichever of those they want.

Unless you'd like to change what you said, those arguments hold equal weight by YOUR logic.
I understand your confusion though, as this doesn't fit into your "all situations are exactly the same, no critical thinking required" worldview.

I'm just applying your logic to another situation. There is no confusion, except perhaps on your part, since you don't seem to grasp how flawed your logic is. More probably, you're just being stubborn and refusing to admit you need to alter what you said or else it justifies arguments you didn't intend for it to justify.
4/25/2013 1:45 PM
Great, so you know not to be an *** and insist that people are wrong when they tell you that they're gay, straight or what have you.  You understand what they are saying, even if they aren't using what you believe to be the correct words in the English language to tell you that.
4/25/2013 1:54 PM
Great, so you know not to be an *** and insist that people are wrong when they tell you that they're gay, straight or what have you.

Yes, I understand what people mean when use commonly accepted definitions that aren't logical, and I don't generally make it a habit to correct them on the spot. However, if we engage in a more in-depth conversation about the topic, for the sake of the conversation it may become necessary at some point for me to point out the logically correct way to address sexuality. After all, I wouldn't want to have the discussion under the false pretense that I somehow agreed with the propaganda-infused point of view.
You understand what they are saying, even if they aren't using what you believe to be the correct words in the English language to tell you that.

Again, it's not about "correct" and "incorrect". It's about what is logical versus what is commonly accepted, which are clearly not the same thing here.
4/25/2013 1:59 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/25/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
I never said that attraction was the only thing that matters. I said that people don't have a choice in what gender they are attracted to so we should allow them to marry whatever gender they want.

So YOUR logic is that since people don't choose who they are attracted to, they should be able to marry whomever they want.

By using YOUR logic, it can also be argued that since people can't choose not to be attracted to children, animals, or inanimate objects, they should be able to marry whichever of those they want.

Unless you'd like to change what you said, those arguments hold equal weight by YOUR logic.
I understand your confusion though, as this doesn't fit into your "all situations are exactly the same, no critical thinking required" worldview.

I'm just applying your logic to another situation. There is no confusion, except perhaps on your part, since you don't seem to grasp how flawed your logic is. More probably, you're just being stubborn and refusing to admit you need to alter what you said or else it justifies arguments you didn't intend for it to justify.
Once again, the situations are completely different. This is why I don't think you really understand what logic means.
4/25/2013 2:05 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/25/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Great, so you know not to be an *** and insist that people are wrong when they tell you that they're gay, straight or what have you.

Yes, I understand what people mean when use commonly accepted definitions that aren't logical, and I don't generally make it a habit to correct them on the spot. However, if we engage in a more in-depth conversation about the topic, for the sake of the conversation it may become necessary at some point for me to point out the logically correct way to address sexuality. After all, I wouldn't want to have the discussion under the false pretense that I somehow agreed with the propaganda-infused point of view.
You understand what they are saying, even if they aren't using what you believe to be the correct words in the English language to tell you that.

Again, it's not about "correct" and "incorrect". It's about what is logical versus what is commonly accepted, which are clearly not the same thing here.
They're telling you who they are attracted to when it comes to men or women.  That's all.  If you want to insist that's not what the word means, most people would probably give you an "OK..." and move on.

Do you want to talk about all the "illogical" things in the english language that are commonly accepted?  Because there are many of them.
4/25/2013 2:06 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 9:36:00 AM (view original):
Could they have just been straight? I wasn't aware of people choosing to be gay.
Pretty sure they have to act on it according to biz.   Doesn't count until then.
4/25/2013 2:07 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
I guess I'll ask - Why do heterosexuals care if homosexuals want to be married?

Why do you care that they care?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.